KORITA PACKAGING LTD AND ANOTHER v. SHAHANEYS (H.K.) LTD

KORITA PACKAGING LTD AND ANOTHER v. SHAHANEYS (H.K.) LTD

The summons to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition — the missing WhatsApp messages could and should have been discovered with reasonable diligence well before the summary judgment hearing — and failed the second condition because the proffered messages would not have important influence or raise a triable issue; the third condition (apparent credibility) was also not established because plaintiffs were not given reasonable opportunity to verify and reply to allegations of doctoring. Accordingly, leave to adduce the fresh evidence on appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2082
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Korita Packaging Ltd; 2nd Plaintiff: Sunsulate (Thailand) Co Ltd; Defendant: Shahaneys (H.K.) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2022
Case Number
HCA2167/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Money Had and Received / Appeal Against Summary Judgment; Summons for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Summons dismissed; defendant's application for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Ladd V Marshall Test, Authenticity of Electronic Messages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Summary Judgment Fresh Evidence on Appeal Ladd V Marshall Test Authenticity of Electronic Messages Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Korita Packaging Ltd

1st Plaintiff

Sunsulate (Thailand) Co Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

Shahaneys (H.K.) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Money Had and Received / Appeal Against Summary Judgment; Summons for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed fresh WhatsApp evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the summary judgment hearing
  2. 2 Whether the fresh evidence would or might, if believed, have a very important influence on the result (i.e. raise a triable issue)
  3. 3 Whether the fresh evidence is apparently credible and whether the plaintiff should be given opportunity to respond to allegations of doctoring

Ratio Decidendi

The summons to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition — the missing WhatsApp messages could and should have been discovered with reasonable diligence well before the summary judgment hearing — and failed the second condition because the proffered messages would not have important influence or raise a triable issue; the third condition (apparent credibility) was also not established because plaintiffs were not given reasonable opportunity to verify and reply to allegations of doctoring. Accordingly, leave to adduce the fresh evidence on appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; defendant's application for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal refused

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • No need for the Plaintiffs to file or serve evidence in reply